We learn something of the history of chemistry but do not get much information about the crucial experiments and observations that led to each ground breaking insight. To some extent, this is unavoidable. Chemistry is not an easy subject. If a chemist sets out to provide an easy introduction in a relatively small number of pages for a chemistry textbook that is , he's got to make major simplifications and compromises.
- The Basics of Chemistry;
- Rabid Child.
- Traits and Stories of the Irish Peasantry V2.
To his credit, Myers really tries to convey some sophisticated information in simple, easy to absorb lessons. I think he might have done better, but he might have done worse.
On the other hand, Greenwood Press has done an atrocious job of preparing the book for publication. There seems to have been no editing at all. On almost every page one can find a place where a sentence contains a wrong word, a diagram is mislabeled, or an awkward, jarring phrase has been allowed to stand. The illustrations are mostly either out of copyright black and white images of historical scenes, or simple tables, formulas or diagrams that look like they were prepared by the author.
It looks as if Myers did the entire job himself in Microsoft Word or some other word processor, gave it to Greenwood, and they published it without reading it or providing any real help. Perhaps they paid for an indexer to prepare the index at the back, or perhaps Myers had to do that too.
- Bestselling Series?
- Los Grandes (Spanish Edition)?
- Top Authors.
- HEROES OF THE INDIAN MUTINY;
I don't expect a good chemist to be a great writer or editor, but I do expect a publisher to smooth out the rough spots. It's not worth it. Amazon Giveaway allows you to run promotional giveaways in order to create buzz, reward your audience, and attract new followers and customers. Learn more about Amazon Giveaway. Set up a giveaway. There's a problem loading this menu right now. Get fast, free shipping with Amazon Prime.
Your recently viewed items and featured recommendations. View or edit your browsing history. Get to Know Us. English Choose a language for shopping. Amazon Music Stream millions of songs. Amazon Drive Cloud storage from Amazon. Alexa Actionable Analytics for the Web.
Download The Basics Of Chemistry Basics Of The Hard Sciences
AmazonGlobal Ship Orders Internationally. Amazon Inspire Digital Educational Resources. Description Written for students beginning a formal study of chemistry, this volume encompasses many different topics in and approaches to introductory chemistry. Chapters are devoted to topics such as the atom, elements and the periodic table, bonding, equilibrium and kinetics, solutions, acids and bases, and chemical reactions.
Several chapters discuss broad areas of chemistry including organic chemistry, biochemistry, environmental chemistry, and industrial chemistry. Illustrations and diagrams help the student understand chemical structures and reactions, and numerous tables present a wealth of reference information. The historical developments of chemical concepts are traced, and biographical information is provided on key individuals responsible for the development of modern chemistry.
Appendices include an extensive bibliography, a glossary of over chemical terms, an overview of Nobel laureates in chemistry, and an element reference table. This book will be of use not only to students, but also to anyone seeking an overview of the field. Teachers of all grades can use Basics of Chemistry as a practical general reference.
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Product details Format Paperback pages Dimensions People who bought this also bought. Data Analysis for Chemistry D.
The Elements Theodore Gray. Curious Tales from Chemistry Lars Ohrstrom. High Marks Sharon Welcher. Oxford IB Study Guides: Hard science and soft science are colloquial terms used to compare scientific fields on the basis of perceived methodological rigor , exactitude, and objectivity. Precise definitions vary,  but features often cited as characteristic of hard science include producing testable predictions , performing controlled experiments , relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models , a high degree of accuracy and objectivity , higher levels of consensus, faster progression of the field, greater explanatory success, cumulativeness, replicability , and generally applying a purer form of the scientific method.
Some philosophers and sociologists of science have questioned the relationship between these characteristics and perceived hardness or softness.
Hard and soft science - Wikipedia
The more "developed" hard sciences do not necessarily have a greater degree of consensus or selectivity in accepting new results. For example, social sciences such as psychology and economics use mathematical models extensively, but are usually considered soft sciences. For example, hard sciences make more extensive use of graphs ,   and soft sciences are more prone to a rapid turnover of buzzwords. The metaphor has been criticised for unduly stigmatizing soft sciences, creating an imbalance in the public perception, funding, and recognition of different fields.
The origin of the terms "hard science" and "soft science" is obscure. He identified astronomy as the most general science, [n 1] followed by physics, chemistry, biology, then sociology.
Hard and soft science
This view was highly influential, and was intended to classify fields based on their degree of intellectual development and the complexity of their subject matter. The modern distinction between hard and soft science is often attributed to an article published in Science by John R. He explored why he considered some scientific fields to be more productive than others, though he did not actually use the terms themselves.
Storer specifically distinguished between the natural sciences as hard and the social sciences as soft. He defined hardness in terms of the degree to which a field uses mathematics and described a trend of scientific fields increasing in hardness over time, identifying features of increased hardness as including better integration and organization of knowledge, an improved ability to detect errors, and an increase in the difficulty of learning the subject. Sociologist Stephen Cole conducted a number of empirical studies attempting to find evidence for a hierarchy of scientific disciplines, and was unable to find significant differences in terms of core of knowledge, degree of codification, or research material.
Differences that he did find evidence for included a tendency for textbooks in soft sciences to rely on more recent work, while the material in textbooks from the hard sciences was more consistent over time.
See a Problem?
Cleveland performed a survey of 57 journals and found that natural science journals used many more graphs than journals in mathematics or social science, and that social science journals often presented large amounts of observational data in the absence of graphs. They found that among research papers that tested a hypothesis, the frequency of positive results was predicted by the perceived hardness of the field. For example, the social sciences as a whole had a 2.